Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Ford Focus Forum, Ford Focus ST Forum, Ford Focus RS Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:

Password

Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:

Confirm Password:

Email Address

Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:

Log-in

User Name

Remember Me?

Password

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.

Additional Options

Miscellaneous Options

Automatically parse links in text

Automatically retrieve titles from external links

Topic Review (Newest First)

12-20-2012 10:21 PM

VOLDAR

Thank you guys for the info. As I said, I didn't know of any gas car capable of 50+ MPG in real city traffic, without hypermiling, of course.

12-20-2012 07:22 PM

Pennut

My ex-wife had a 1981 Civic 2 dr hatchback with the 1.5L and a 3 speed automatic transmission. Had about 64 hp. Used to get 40+ mpg on the hwy. But geez was that thing underpowered. 0-60 mph was ..... eventually. Top speed was 85 mph.

Yeah new cars are much heavier. And safer.

12-20-2012 11:34 AM

Slo86GT

It's true. Some SOHC turbo guys doing highway runs look for them for the long gearing.

12-20-2012 11:11 AM

kam327

Quote:

Originally Posted by pozi240

Hey Kam!
I can shed a little more light on that........

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slo86GT

Your statements are valid, I agree. It was a toy car compared to cars now...........

Thanks for the good contributions guys/gals. I also read on Yahoo answers I think that the gears in the HF were more widely spaced on the 5MT. Not the most reliable source I know.

12-20-2012 10:54 AM

Slo86GT

Your statements are valid, I agree. It was a toy car compared to cars now. The car made the best use of archaic tech. 8 valve four cylinder in the earliest models 12 valve later, 1.5 liters, 1800 lb curb weight, and a carburetor, or later very very choked down MultiPoint-FI.

But the original reply was to "No gas car at 50mpg". Maybe not current, but these did it, and did it real world, even after the changes to the window sticker reporting.

The CRX's had no VTEC. They were simply choked down intake tracts to increase efficiency, and decrease the amount of fuel guzzling abuse the owner could impose.

The VTEC-e (efficiency) engines did not appear until 1992 when the hatchback VX came out. It was amazing. Lightweight wheels, 92~ hp, and a manual trans only. Only got high 30's in the MPG department, but was a great platform and actually felt like a real car.

In 1996 the HX is now a coupe with either an 5 speed manual or CVT transmission with a similar high efficiency VTECe engine.

:thumbup:

12-20-2012 10:46 AM

pozi240

Quote:

Originally Posted by kam327

Very interesting. I too went to the site and noticed that the dozen or so versions of that car in 1987 varied widely in gas mileage, with as little as 26 city / 30 hwy with a 5MT just like the subject car and same engine displacement. How the hell did they increase fuel economy by 70% for the "HF" version?

The only light the wikipedia page sheds on it is that the HF version weighed about 150 lbs less than the regular version, which since the regular version weighed only 1,865 lbs is a substantial reduction.

Of course those cars all weighed so little back then due to a lack of any safety features or creature comforts, that's how they stood a chance of getting reasonable mileage despite a lack of direct injection and other technical goodies.

Which leads us to the fact that you may have gotten close or in some limited cases even better mileage than the '12 Focus in your 25-year-old compact but you would've been toast in any sort of accident whereas the Focus will keep you relatively safe as shown by several posts on this site.

Hey Kam!
I can shed a little more light on that, the "HF" Civic's and CRX's had a completely different drivetrain , they used a special 1.5 3valve VTEC-E (the "E" being a very different design than the regular VTEC systems of the day). Whereas the regular VTEC was designed to adjust timing and lift for power, the "E" system was for economy only(lots of overlap to reburn exhaust gases)... they used a small 1.5 motor, that got a measly 60hp (the regular 1.6EFI motors in the other civics were around 91hp by comparison), and had an aggressive EGR system that reburned the spent gas over and over again making it quite the gas mizer. These cars were pathetically slow, even though they wieghed less than 2300lbs. They also used special lighter wheels (they had expensive forged aluminum wheels and hard LRR type tires). I think their may have even been some underbody plastic covers (completely covering the lower side of the engine and car) as well. (back then, no cars had the undertrays like they do today. It wasn't a very "fun" car to drive, but, they were quite amazing on gas... LOL.

12-20-2012 09:41 AM

kam327

Quote:

Originally Posted by foh-kuhs

Still impressive but to keep a comparison apples to apples, new EPA estimates are calculated differently. Converting to new standards, City mpg drops 10 MPG. From fueleconomy.org:

New MPG tests are more realistic
New MPG 42 City 46 Combined 51 Hwy
Old MPG
52 City 54 Combined 57 Hwy

Very interesting. I too went to the site and noticed that the dozen or so versions of that car in 1987 varied widely in gas mileage, with as little as 26 city / 30 hwy with a 5MT just like the subject car and same engine displacement. How the hell did they increase fuel economy by 70% for the "HF" version?

The only light the wikipedia page sheds on it is that the HF version weighed about 150 lbs less than the regular version, which since the regular version weighed only 1,865 lbs is a substantial reduction.

Of course those cars all weighed so little back then due to a lack of any safety features or creature comforts, that's how they stood a chance of getting reasonable mileage despite a lack of direct injection and other technical goodies.

Which leads us to the fact that you may have gotten close or in some limited cases even better mileage than the '12 Focus in your 25-year-old compact but you would've been toast in any sort of accident whereas the Focus will keep you relatively safe as shown by several posts on this site.

12-20-2012 08:53 AM

foh-kuhs

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slo86GT

Hate to stir the pot, but Honda did it... for at least 6 years running.

85-91 CRX HF.

Still impressive but to keep a comparison apples to apples, new EPA estimates are calculated differently. Converting to new standards, City mpg drops 10 MPG. From fueleconomy.org:

New MPG tests are more realistic
New MPG 42 City 46 Combined 51 Hwy
Old MPG
52 City 54 Combined 57 Hwy

12-20-2012 06:44 AM

kam327

Quote:

Originally Posted by michaelwb

Interesting. I played with the trip computer today, resetting it several times on the highway to see what MPGs I got at constant speed.

I stayed in the far right lane and kept my speed between 52 and 57 mph, letting the car slow down as it went up nearly imperceptible inclines and gliding as much as possible. My MPGs stayed around 45 MPG.

My steady state MPG at 55 mph is around 47 mpg and I have the DCT and stock 17" tires. So you're pretty much right on. ZX3's mid-40's claim seems a little far fetched but steady state MPG at 45 mph is almost 60 mpg so if he's spending a lot of time on country roads around 45 mph then I can see it being possible.

12-20-2012 12:34 AM

michaelwb

Quote:

Originally Posted by zx3matt

I get mid 40s on a regular basis and I am NOT an eco-conscious driver.

Interesting. I played with the trip computer today, resetting it several times on the highway to see what MPGs I got at constant speed.

I stayed in the far right lane and kept my speed between 52 and 57 mph, letting the car slow down as it went up nearly imperceptible inclines and gliding as much as possible. My MPGs stayed around 45 MPG.